SB1070 exposed for what it really is. Actual text and an explanation of the history behind it, the people involved, the real intent and what to expect (BTW - NATIONAL ID is the end result and it is soooo obvious, but ignored by the Lame-Stream Media.

SB1070 exposed for what it really is. Actual text (location 1) - Law Here (location 2) - and an explanation of the history behind it, the people involved, the real intent and what to expect (BTW - NATIONAL ID is the end result and it is soooo obvious, but ignored by the Lame-Stream Media. Why?)

In a ruling today, the federal judge struck down everything that occurs
at the time and after a police stop, but left everything in before the
police stop, including the sending of law abiding Arizonans drivers
license information to the feds.

Mike - you state that the section of law
Ernie cited only applies if the
individual is stopped during the commission of a crime yet both the
article you referenced by Ilya
Shapiro and the actual text of the law indicates you're wrong. The
section cited by Ernie appears to apply to any lawful stop, detention or
arrest which is a much broader range of possible law enforcement
contacts then when someone is stopped during the commission of a crime.

Take for
instance checkpoint stops. If you've read any of my articles, you
should know that per the U.S. Supreme Court a checkpoint stop represents
a seizure/detention under the 4th amendment regardless of whether or
not it's based upon probable cause, reasonable suspicion or no suspicion
at all. Further, AZ courts have upheld the use of checkpoints by AZ law
enforcement agencies despite there being no explicit legal
authorization for them under State law.

Using the wording of SB1070 & the fact the courts generally
consider checkpoint stops to be lawful, what's to stop AZ law
enforcement agencies from conducting suspicionless checkpoints within
the state and using the initial contact from such suspicionless seizures
as a basis to further a detention under provisions of SB1070?

Do you find this very real possibility troubling or perfectly
acceptable?

Comment by: Ernest Hancock (#1003) Entered on: 2010-07-31 11:27:03

The "1070 thing"? :)

It has always been a "Freedom Thing" with me.

The mental gymnastics that people go through to justify obvious contradictions between what government promises and the reality of the situation is not lost on the young and/or informed. The very same people that screamed just as loud 15 years ago when the Federal Government expanded their reach with 'cooperation with local law enforcement' (multi-jurisdictional task forces - Fusion Centers - deputizing of locals as Federal Marshals etc.) are often the same ones that have been used to trumpet the promotion of the same exact thing if will _promise_ a targeted attack, via 'attrition' (the act of weakening or exhausting by constant harassment, abuse, or attack ) on EVERYBODY to get those unable or unwilling to show the LEO their Government Documents.

No amount of ignorance or attempts to avoid the issues of SB1070 will eliminate the obvious evolution of this law into a despised expansion of the Police State. So what would be the motivation of a freedom advocate for not pointing out what they know is going to be experienced, or at least eventually understood, by a vast majority in due time?

This law is very very very bad and will soon be seen as the beginning of the end of government in America being seen as a defender of individual rights. Staking out a clear position in opposition to this massive expansion of police power, indemnification of responsibility for Police, the sharing of Arizona Resident's information with... every agency imaginable, the "power" for unlimited detention of individuals that don't have their "papers" on them, the ability for any Arizona resident to sue any level of government in Arizona for not aggressively implementing this law enough etc etc etc.... so staking out a clear position against this is really an easy choice for those of us that have experience with such tactics by those that aim to "Rule" us.

There will come a time (soon I expect) when this legislation will be clearly understood by enough people that my attention will no longer be needed to highlight the dangerousness of what is happening. And if history is any reference, I'll have several other government expansions of tyranny to pay attention to.

But for right now... :)

Comment by: (#13254) Entered on: 2010-07-31 08:56:19

Yeah Ernie, what John Morgan said. Stop rocking the boat, no matter how correct you happen to be. Just shut up and sit down. Pearce is a good guy like Mike said, he once did something someone thought was pro liberty and that gives him a lifetime free pass on bad... I mean GOOD legislation.

David Alpha

Comment by: John Morgan (#29797) Entered on: 2010-07-30 22:20:19

Ernest, you've over-analyzed this issue. You've gone off the deep end. Even if you're right, you're doing more harm than good by fomenting division among us. Relatively speaking, National ID is the least of our worries right now. You'd do more good if you focused on ways to unite the People. Please just drop the 1070 thing.

Comment by: Ernest Hancock (#1003) Entered on: 2010-07-30 18:07:12

11-1051

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL

(If you are interested then just read the law, link above)

Comment by: Mike Renzulli (#5236) Entered on: 2010-07-30 17:40:35

Again, we see where Ernie applies selective logic or has no idea what he is talking about. The section he cites applies ONLY if the individual is stopped during the commission of a crime.
Futhermore, if the cop believes demanding ID would hinder his or her investigation of a crime, they have the option not to demand it nor check the individual's immigration status.

Comment by: Ernest Hancock (#1003) Entered on: 2010-07-30 16:05:19

( You are presumed legal IF you show ID.... I'm just the messenger :)

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO
IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE
ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED
IDENTIFICATION.

Comment by: (#) Entered on: 2010-07-30 15:03:39

Oh yeah you are right Mike. The federal government restrains itself.

Also, the very agency trying to put every american into the national id database, when handed the data they are looking for by the State of Arizona will refrain from putting it in that database even though there is no reason in law for them to refrain from doing so.

You're right.

Comment by: Mike Renzulli (#5236) Entered on: 2010-07-30 15:01:24

Well you seemed to imply that when you came to his defense after I posted my objections, John. Also, a national ID won't be the end result. Just because governments share information does not mean that driver's licenses automatically become national ID cards.

Comment by: (#) Entered on: 2010-07-30 14:40:40

I, John Green, for one never said that the law said that MIKE. Thanks for yet another one of your red herrings. A state cant create a national id, duh. No one ever said it could. National ID is DATA, not a card. The sections in question hand over the necessary DATA for the feds to turn Arizona licenses into national ids.

Rein yourself in, boy. Quit trying to punch illusions and stick to the cold, hard facts and words AS THEY ARE, not according to your own interpretation, opinion, emotions or spin.

Comment by: Mike Renzulli (#5236) Entered on: 2010-07-30 14:38:15

And there is nothing in the law that SAYS one has to carry ID nor will it lead to a national I.D. card.

I knew Russell Pearce when I lived in Mesa for 5 years from 2000 to 2005. Pearce is retired cop who has a very strong libertarian streak. He also co-sponsored a resolution overwhelmingly passed by the AZ legislature expressing AZ's concerns with THE PATRIOT ACT that the ACLU supported.

How do I know this? Because I gave him the text of the resolution that got passed.

I would take the response to my comments a bit more seriously, if the poster identified themselves. Since he/she/it does not therefore I will only respond by saying that it was due to yours truly pushing the outer edge of this website's envelope and ruffling many feathers many times over with my op-eds that I will be glad to do so again since it is clear that Ernie isn't interested in the truth as much as he is about furthering his own public image.

The poster should realize is that part of being objective is to gather all of the facts before making a conclusion. Facts are good for Ernie only when it gives him the ability to be in the limelight.

Unlike Hancock I have actually read and investigated the law and how it will apply. If Ernie did, he would realize that his assertion is wrong and discontinue his campaign of lies. However, if he wants to shoot himself in the foot, that is his business. The only thing is is that sad part is the libertarian movement's reputation could suffer badly because of his shinanegans.

As I said in my column about thi subject, the law is based soley on documentation, written to apply to everyone equally and, despite opponent's claims, and there is no requirement in SB 1070 that people in Arizona have to carry any identification.

The documentation sections of the law apply only in instances when someone applies for public benefits. That's it.

The only time this will have any effect is when a police officer stops someone during the commission of a crime and even at that there are protections in place that a cop must meet prior to utilizing SB 1070 or for his or her application of the law can be considered valid in court.

Ilya Shapiro has done a review of the law and likes it. However, I will not hold my breath that Ernie will have him on his show since to do so would rid Hancock of one more thing to rant about.

Comment by: (#) Entered on: 2010-07-30 11:50:58

Mike, I have personally vetted and confirmed every word Ernie said.

I cannot believe your hypocracy. As an objectivist, you should know there's no "take with a grain of salt" a statement such as 1+1=2.

a=a, right?

That means, objectively speaking, if you have not availed yourself of the facts, then you can only logically surmise that Ernie is either right or he is wrong. Objectively speaking, it's a binary question, no grain of salt.

The FACT is Mike, that you have not availed yourself of all the facts. Therefore, you unobjective OPINION on the matter is irrelevant. Logically and objectively, you can only surmise that either Ernie is right or Ernie is wrong, then each possibility can be validated objectively and your position will end up either being right or wrong upon validation.

The only thing I CAN objectively state regarding your comment is that your statement is incredibly logically hypocritical coming from someone who claims to be an objectivist.

Comment by: Mike Renzulli (#5236) Entered on: 2010-07-30 10:12:13

I would take Ernie's interpretation with a grain of salt. Without having actually listened to this, Ernie obviously is hyping it up to garner himself publicity without taking into account the facts about SB 1070. He is his own worst enemy and is just as much as media hound as the politicians he claims to abhor. If he was truly interested in the facts he would either have Senator Russell Pearce or Cato Institute staff attorney Ilya Shapiro on his show.